Really? Lucky for me I get to pick and choose which ballot boxes I check. I guess that makes me irrelevant only on certain candidates. A candidate who is pro gun and pro life doesn't do it for me anymore, they must also be fiscal conservative after all what good is any of this when we are a third world country because we have overspent and over borrowed? That day is eventually going to get here.

You're not voting for a Republican. You're not voting for a Democrat. Who exactly is left?

mojo84 wrote:Is there anyone out there that you agree with 100% on all the issues?

Heck I only agree with myself 55% of the time...

When did "no true Scotsman" takeover the Republican Party? Its not good when either party does this. It lessens the opportunities for good candidates that can be elected by the American People to make it to actual election stage.

Right2Carry wrote:I don't want either man. If a man can't stick by the principles he campaigns on then he doesn't deserve my vote. My vote is worth something and it won't be cast anymore for the lesser of two evils. Cornyn is not very far removed from McCain and I consider them the be two peas in a pod.

A non-vote for Cornyn is in essence a vote for Alameel.

That dog won't hunt anymore. It's a scare tactic being used along the same lines as calling someone a racist for being anti Obama.

Don't play the race card again. As for your hunting dog analogy, the guy with the most votes wins so maybe you'll reconsider not voting for Cornyn. Plan A is for a candidate to get you to vote for him. Failing that, Plan B is to get you not to vote for his opponent.

In another post you say guns and saving babies aren't enough for you because you want fiscal responsibility also. Well you aren't going to get it with Alameel and he'll also take your guns and kill babies in the process of spending your money.

Chas.

I didn't play a race card. I made a referance to a scare tactic that is often used on people who didn't vote for Obama. I was comparing scare tactics. How you came up with me playing a race card is beyond me.

I guess no one is allowed a dissenting opinion on a candidate around here anymore. I guess we have forgotten how to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions because of what we might get. Maybe if our elected officials were scared of the voters and what they might do things would change.

I have a right to my opinion on Cornyn just like ever other member on this board.

I still don't understand how my statement was deemed throwing a race card when that was not my intention at all.

You know quite well how and why you threw down the race card.

Nevertheless, back to the issue. Yes, you have every right to both an opinion and to refrain from voting for Cornyn. That's not the point. The point made by Keith was that by not voting for Alameel, for whatever reasons you deem appropriate, you are helping to put Alameel in the United States Senate. Rather than acknowledge that fact, you chose to deny it and analogize Keith's statement to opposition to Obama. The irony is that Alameel is far worse on the issues you (and I for that matter) hold dear.

As for the 'scare tactic' it is a fact. Take a look at the presidential race in 1992. Ross Perot pulled 18.9% of the popular vote. Bush got 37.5% and Clinton received 43.0%. Now, while it may not have made enough of a difference in an electoral based race, it sure as heck would have made a difference in a head-to-head Senatorial race. Had even 7% of those that voted for the Perot voted or those that didn't vote at all cast a vote for Bush he would have had the popular vote. So, in a 2-candidate race, if you don't vote for the lesser of the evils and help offset a vote for the one you DON'T want to see in office, then you are not helping the cause at all and actually hurting it. Sometimes you have to be an adult and do things that may not be 100% popular with your beliefs.

Keith B wrote:Sorry, have not been solid on the board in a couple of days.

As for the 'scare tactic' it is a fact. Take a look at the presidential race in 1992. Ross Perot pulled 18.9% of the popular vote. Bush got 37.5% and Clinton received 43.0%. Now, while it may not have made enough of a difference in an electoral based race, it sure as heck would have made a difference in a head-to-head Senatorial race. Had even 7% of those that voted for the Perot voted or those that didn't vote at all cast a vote for Bush he would have had the popular vote. So, in a 2-candidate race, if you don't vote for the lesser of the evils and help offset a vote for the one you DON'T want to see in office, then you are not helping the cause at all and actually hurting it. Sometimes you have to be an adult and do things that may not be 100% popular with your beliefs.

Well each person should vote what they want, but I'll just note I've never seen a candidate who shared my beliefs 100% since Goldwater, from any party. I look forward to seeing what candidates each party runs and vote the least worst.

I have always found a lot of wisdom in a quote from Robert Heinlein: Always vote. There may not be anyone you want to vote for, but there is sure to be someone you want to vote against. (That was the gist of it if I messed up the actual wording.)

Now my problem is that I don't have the wisdom to know what to do when there is more than one I want to vote against.